Today, the Norwegian Government announced that it will divest its funds from all companies which take more than five percent of their profits from tobacco production.

The Norwegian government pension fund, Global, which according to www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk is considered to be the world’s second largest pension fund, has till recently held huge interests in the tobacco industry.

The Norwegian Minister of Finance, Ms Kristin Halvorsen, today announced that Norway will divest USD 2.1 billion which is currently invested in the tobacco industry and replace this with other stocks.

Six published studies have assessed outdoor levels of SHS using metred PM2.5 as a

marker of exposure. The magnitude of PM2.5is dependent on the number of smokers

present, proximity of the measurement device to the source of the SHS, the extent

to which the outdoor space is physically constrained (e.g., walls, partial roof,

umbrellas), and wind. The data show peak outdoor PM2.5 levels in semi‐enclosed

areas with several smokers present can be comparable to those recorded in indoor

smoky environments. However, outdoor PM2.5 levels are more transient as the

smoke plume is less confined and can rapidly dissipate.

SHS can be a major source of PM2.5, particularly in indoor environments. The average

PM2.5 level in bars where smoking occurs is 303 μg/m3 and 157 μg/m3 in restaurants.

Because of repeated and cumulative exposure to SHS in outdoor settings like beer

gardens and outdoor eating areas, occupational exposures to PM2.5 from SHS are

likely to be far higher than those experienced by patrons who are present for far

shorter periods. We estimate that occupational exposure to SHS in waitstaff working

in outdoor patio areas where smoking is allowed could average 1.6 to 9.8 μg/m3 per

year. It is thus plausible that occupational exposure to PM2.5 in outdoor work

settings where smoking is allowed could exceed the Australian National Environment

Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality benchmark annual average target of

8μg/m3 .

An increase of 5μg/m3 to 10 μg/m3 in average annual PM2.5 exposure is associated with

a 3‐6% increase in all‐cause mortality.

Personal monitoring studies have not yet been conducted to corroborate modelled

estimates of staff exposure in these settings. Such studies should be conducted to

test the modelled exposure estimates we have calculated.

Executive SummaryRestrictions on smoking outdoors have been introduced for reasons of publicamenity and to promote litter reduction. This review considers the evidence aboutwhether outdoor secondhand smoke (SHS) might also pose health risks to others.Six published studies have assessed outdoor levels of SHS using metred PM2.5 as amarker of exposure. The magnitude of PM2.5is dependent on the number of smokerspresent, proximity of the measurement device to the source of the SHS, the extentto which the outdoor space is physically constrained (e.g., walls, partial roof,umbrellas), and wind. The data show peak outdoor PM2.5 levels in semi‐enclosedareas with several smokers present can be comparable to those recorded in indoorsmoky environments. However, outdoor PM2.5 levels are more transient as thesmoke plume is less confined and can rapidly dissipate.SHS can be a major source of PM2.5, particularly in indoor environments. The averagePM2.5 level in bars where smoking occurs is 303 μg/m3 and 157 μg/m3 in restaurants.Because of repeated and cumulative exposure to SHS in outdoor settings like beergardens and outdoor eating areas, occupational exposures to PM2.5 from SHS arelikely to be far higher than those experienced by patrons who are present for farshorter periods. We estimate that occupational exposure to SHS in waitstaff workingin outdoor patio areas where smoking is allowed could average 1.6 to 9.8 μg/m3 peryear. It is thus plausible that occupational exposure to PM2.5 in outdoor worksettings where smoking is allowed could exceed the Australian National EnvironmentProtection Measure for Ambient Air Quality benchmark annual average target of8μg/m3 .An increase of 5μg/m3 to 10 μg/m3 in average annual PM2.5 exposure is associated witha 3‐6% increase in all‐cause mortality.Personal monitoring studies have not yet been conducted to corroborate modelledestimates of staff exposure in these settings. Such studies should be conducted totest the modelled exposure estimates we have calculated.

Restrictions on smoking outdoors have been introduced for reasons of public amenity and to promote litter reduction. This review considers the evidence about whether outdoor secondhand smoke (SHS) might also pose health risks to others. Six published studies have assessed outdoor levels of SHS using metred PM2.5 as a marker of exposure. The magnitude of PM2.5is dependent on the number of smokers present, proximity of the measurement device to the source of the SHS, the extent to which the outdoor space is physically constrained (e.g., walls, partial roof, umbrellas), and wind. The data show peak outdoor PM2.5 levels in semi-enclosed areas with several smokers present can be comparable to those recorded in indoor smoky environments. However, outdoor PM2.5 levels are more transient as the smoke plume is less confined and can rapidly dissipate. SHS can be a major source of PM2.5, particularly in indoor environments. The average PM2.5 level in bars where smoking occurs is 303 µg/m3 and 157 µg/m3 in restaurants. Because of repeated and cumulative exposure to SHS in outdoor settings like beer gardens and outdoor eating areas, occupational exposures to PM2.5 from SHS are likely to be far higher than those experienced by patrons who are present for far shorter periods. We estimate that occupational exposure to SHS in waitstaff working in outdoor patio areas where smoking is allowed could average 1.6 to 9.8 µg/m3 per year. It is thus plausible that occupational exposure to PM2.5 in outdoor work settings where smoking is allowed could exceed the Australian National Environment Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality benchmark annual average target of 8µg/m3 . An increase of 5µg/m3 to 10 µg/m3 in average annual PM2.5 exposure is associated with a 3-6% increase in all-cause mortality. Personal monitoring studies have not yet been conducted to corroborate modelled estimates of staff exposure in these settings. Such studies should be conducted to test the modelled exposure estimates we have calculated.

Bloomberg News had a stunning win this week, which was just hilarious.

Australia, the country that all South Africans love to hate, has some of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the world. Australia raised tobacco taxes by 25 per cent last year and says it will become the first nation to ban brand names on cigarette packaging to deter smokers. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last April pledged the government would spend $85 million on an anti-smoking advertising campaign with the slogan “cigarettes are not cool.”

Now, the Australian government has a thing called The Future Fund, which was established in 2006 to cover the pension costs of retiring parliamentarians, lawmakers, judges and public servants.

Anyway, Bloomberg did some ferreting around, and discovered that the Future Fund held stakes in 14 tobacco companies as of December 31, 2010, worth $147.7 million. Including a major position in British American Tobacco! Hypocrites!

At first glance, it would appear that our PIC does not own a significant the stock in its direct R900 million portfolio. Chances are that it does own shares in the funds which it pushes out to external asset managers. Remember that anyone who held the old Remgro group company got British American Tobacco shares in the unbundling in 2008.

Why am I so negative about tobacco shares? In particular British American Tobacco seems to be doing rather well, paying good dividends, and expanding in Asia. Their balance sheet is a fit as a fiddle. The health of customers is a more tricky issue, of course. The company does now concede that “cigarette smoking is a cause of serious and fatal diseases”.

They are diversifying their product range. For example, they are working on a smokeless tobacco product called snus, which is inserted between the gum and upper lip allowing nicotine, tobacco extract and flavours to be absorbed through the oral mucosa. Does that sound tasty?

Why would you want to give those guys your savings to work with? Seriously!?

Part of the investment policy debate is related to the discovery of several cases of investment by The Petroleum Fund in highly controversial companies, involved in businesses such as arms production and tobacco. The Petroleum Fund’s Advisory Council on Ethics was established 19 November 2004 by royal decree. Accordingly, the Ministry of Finance issued a new regulation on the management of the Government Petroleum Fund which also includes ethical guidelines.

On 19 January 2010 the Ministry of Finance announced that 17 tobacco companies had been excluded from the fund.[9] The total divestment from these companies was USD 2bn (NOK 14.2bn), making it the largest divestment caused by ethical recommendations in the history of the fund.[10]

CHEAP duty free cigarettes are being sold illegally in the CBD for as little as $8 a packet – half the cost of a regular brand.

The sellers are risking 10 years behind bars and hefty tax fines by flogging the under-the-counter smokes at news and magazine kiosks on George St.

Brands range from established labels to overseas names.

The Sunday Telegraph was last week able to buy a range of popular brands that had been imported from China, Korea and Hong Kong.

Most had “for duty free sale only” written on the side. Some had health warnings but no graphic pictures.

The trade in smuggled duty free cigarettes from other countries has doubled in the past six months, according to one of the large tobacco companies.

Popularity of illegal loose-leaf tobacco _ referred to as “chop chop’ was falling as demand for more convenient ready-made cigarettes rose, a spokesperson for British American Tobacco Australasia (BATA) said.

Rising quantities of illegal duty free cigarettes are another blow to the tobacco industry which faces the reality of plain packaging laws.

All cigarettes will be sold in olive-brown packs emblazoned with health warnings from December next year. Police are more likely to seize illegal tobacco at import level said Simon Chapman, professor of public health at the University of Sydney.

The large scale Operation Polaris, a joint effort by NSW and Federal Police, Customs and Border Protection Service and the NSW Crime Commission last month cracked a major tobacco smuggling ring.

More than 60 tonnes of illegal tobacco and 25 million counterfeit cigarettes were seized in Sydney and two men charged with bribery, dealing in proceeds of crime, and obtaining financial advantage by deception.

But fewer prosecutions occurred at retail level, BATA’s anti illicit trade manager Barry Wilson said, as illegal tobacco was so hard to track once it slipped through the net into circulation.

SINGAPORE: Smoking may be banned in more public places if there is strong support for the move.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) said there have been calls to make more public places smoke-free, and it wants to hear from the public on this.

More people appear to be in favour of a wider ban as the NEA has seen an increase of about 20 per cent in such calls in 2010. There were 556 calls in 2010, compared to 469 in 2009.

So the NEA is working with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to get a better idea of public sentiment through an “e-poll”.

Khoo Seow Poh, deputy CEO of National Environment Agency, said: “Over the years, we have been extending the smoking ban to a few places progressively and our policy has thus far been quite effective.

“Today, some 86 per cent of Singaporeans are non-smokers. To further enhance the protection of this group of people, we are now considering further extending the smoking prohibition to more public areas.”

These could cover places like void decks, covered linkways and common corridors.

Most people MediaCorp spoke to agree.

One person said: “At the common walkway…because this is where most people will be going along from MRT stations.”

Another commented: “…..people walking towards a bus stop, they smoke on the way and while they are at the bus stop, they will continue (smoking) while waiting for the buses. So I think that is not right. Probably, you can start the ban even from the walkways leading to all these bus stops.”

A third person added: “Void decks, if possible, especially areas where you have children walking around. It is quite bad for them.”

Others want stronger enforcement in places like bus stops and public toilets where smoking is already banned.

One member of the public said: “It is still happening. So maybe the bans are not really effective.”

Another noted: “Wherever I want to take the bus, there are always a lot of smokers smoking and it affects me.”

NEA’s e-poll will also ask if smoking corners in places such as hawker centres and food and entertainment outlets should be removed, and if smoking should be banned in beaches and parks.

However, some people are concerned.

A member of the public said: “Where are they going to smoke? You might as well ban smoking in all places as well.”

Smoking is currently banned in 37 public places.

As of October this year, 4,462 smokers were caught for flouting the law – more than the total number caught for the whole of 2009.

Most were caught breaking the no-smoking rule in shopping malls and multi-storey carparks.

The poll is on till the end of next month and those who want to share their views can go to theREACH, NEA or HPB websites.